Racing Past the Constitution

Ummmm, my comments to Apple were about the long waiting lines. :rolleyes:

christiefan915 said:
It has to do with the fact that the thread comments are about the superiority of the US system over other systems with universal healthcare. It has to do with the fact that the man who had universal healthcare went to another country with universal healthcare after waiting 16 months for treatment, rather than right over the border to our system.
Click to expand...
 
Threedee said:
The suits aren't going to disappear or anything...
Click to expand...
For the doctor they will, people will start suing the provider as they go for the deepest pockets. The government will indemnify itself for refusing service that it deems to "costly" and the doctors in order to keep costs down. Either that or they will severely limit rewards from such lawsuits.
 
Damocles said:
For the doctor they will, people will start suing the provider as they go for the deepest pockets. The government will indemnify itself for refusing service that it deems to "costly" and the doctors in order to keep costs down. Either that or they will severely limit rewards from such lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Darn that will drive those poor malpractice insurance companies out of business.

I still say a DR's performance history should be available to all.
Informed consumers.
 
Damocles said:
For the doctor they will, people will start suing the provider as they go for the deepest pockets. The government will indemnify itself for refusing service that it deems to "costly" and the doctors in order to keep costs down. Either that or they will severely limit rewards from such lawsuits.
Click to expand...


If they would do that now much of the costs could be gotten under control. I am also for deregulation that prevents real competition between insurance companies across state lines. (a McCain idea).
 
I have always been against HMO's. We do need reform, but not what Obama has in mind. If you think his plan does NOT tell the doctors what they can and cannot do, you are crazy.

Mottleydude said:
I can tell you don't know many doctors. You just simply don't know what you're talking about. The biggest complaints about the health care industry by Doctors is how HMO's and Insurance companies manipulate the system so that there's a complete lack of standardization and an ungodly level of red tape that drives up the cost of health care astronomically. All to often Doctors diagnoses are either contravened by HMO/Insurance providers or just simply denied coverage. The end result is the course of treatment is determined by HMO's/Insurance companies at astronomically inflated prices.

The rational fact is that our current health care system does not function for 40% of the population and provided inadequate basic coverage for 30% more. Health care in our nation is becoming a system of haves and have nots based upon socio economic statis and this is just as stupid as only allowing rich people to get a college education.
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
Well, no not really. Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. .................
Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program .............
There is also the CHIP and HIPP programs, which are spawned from Medicaid, as well as the infamous Pill Bill,.....
Click to expand...

That's one of the problems right there. A program for "this" and a program for "that" and all the resulting bureaucracy that each program requires. It's like Unemployment Insurance and Welfare and Food Stamps and God knows what else. There needs to be a Guaranteed Income program which I think will eventually come but probably not for some time.

Whether you're out of work because the factory closed or you broke your leg or you're too old to work everyone would receive a Guaranteed Income. Nothing could be easier to manage as most people already file Income Tax.

Imagine if there wasn't any Income Tax and someone suggested it today. Can you hear the crowds screaming how absurd and impossible it would be to have a program that required every US adult to file forms with the government? Impossible! Could never be done! How could the government possibly find out how much everyone earned but from what I understand the IRS does a pretty good job of it. :)

If the government is going to pay for everyone's medical care, there will not be too many people who will opt to go outside the system and pay the cost themselves, it would be foolish to do that. Since there will no longer be a demand for non-government-paid health care, the private sector hospitals and physicians will mostly go out of business. This will cause a dramatic increase in price of private, non-government-funded health care, IF you can find it. So, no, it's not the same as with teachers, accountants, janitors, mechanics, or any other profession.
Click to expand...

So how do private schools operate? Why do people pay huge sums of money to attend a prestigious university when they can go to a community college?

When a person has an operation and requires stitches they don't feel the need for the doctor to perform needlepoint on them. :cof1: (I like this little coffee fella although I do have suspicion there's a little something in his coffee!)

Also, regardless of the profession, for production and efficiency, I'll put any private sector worker above a government worker, any day of the week. Same for companies and agencies, I'll take the private sector over government, anytime. They are far more productive and efficient, and generally cost less per person in the end.
Click to expand...

I used to own a house built by the government. It was part of an old radar base up north. (I inherited it when my father passed. He liked to hunt and fish.) Anyway, in a climate that ranges from 85F in the summer to -30F in the winter after closing the house for 10 years there was not one crack in the wall. Not one door stuck. Not one chip of paint on the floor after being closed for 10 years.

I have a suburban home that was a model home back in the late 60s. I'm sure if I closed this place for 10 years I'd return to see nothing but a hole in the ground. AHAHAHAHAHAHA And it's built on Bedrock, as well. That's the difference between a house private enterprise built and a house the government built.

First of all, as I pointed out above, we already pay a tiny (3%) portion of our paychecks, to fund Medicare. We've even extended this program to include the poor with Medicaid, and the children, with CHIP. We've extended it to now include medicine for old people. All total, we are spending nearly a trillion dollars per year, to provide medical care to those who can't afford it. You want to extend our burden to include ALL, not just those who can't afford it. We can't afford to fund the programs we have now, but you want to add trillions to the bill.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of those illnesses could have been prevented or, at least, lessened if those folks had been able to see a doctor, free of charge, and preventive measures had been taken.

Strokes, heart disease, diabetes....all those diseases can be controlled or they can be ignored until a major crisis happens. Then the patient requires 24 hour care. Just think of the money that could be saved by something as simple as a free, yearly checkup.

I have already stated that I do not believe half of all bankruptcies are the result of medical bills, you will have to show me some tangible proof to support that, because I think it's liberal propaganda. I've known of several people who had very high medical bills, as the result of extensive hospital stays, or whatever, and in their case, the hospital simply wrote off the bill as bad debt.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of google links.

I don't know, it's not my problem!! I am smart enough to plan for my future, and I have enough insurance and savings, to cover anything that may come up. I'm not the most responsible person in America, so I doubt I am alone in my planning. You are dodging the issue. We don't have the money to pay for this, and you are using that as a reason for why we must do it anyway! It's beyond INSANE! .................

Again, we live in a representative republic, we elect legislative representatives who vote based on what those who elected them want. If most Americans wanted government to take over medicine, Hillary-care would have passed with flying colors.

This is a concept you should really try to learn to grasp. We live in a democratic society, not a fascist dictatorship. Sometimes, the rest of the people in society, may not want the same shit you do, and that doesn't mean they aren't listening or don't care, it means they simply don't agree with you.
Click to expand...

But it is your problem. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along. That is what the Liberals have been trying to tell you and either you are unable to comprehend what is being told to you or you're just stubborn.

You acknowledge universal medical is coming. If it had been instituted when Hillary mentioned it, when there was extra money that could have been used to set it up.......but that didn't happen. Why? Well, we're back to square one; opposition during Clinton's term and a lack of leadership over the following eight years.

Now it is going to be added to the debt when the debt is already high. It's unfortunate but as Obama has said, "We waited long enough." The opportunity was missed and the resultant debt and taxes will be your problem just as it will be everyone's problem because we waited too long. Still, it's better now than later.

People aren't "complaining" there is no money, there really IS NO MONEY! Whatever you spend on this, will have to be borrowed from China, if China will dare to loan us the money.
Click to expand...

The situation wouldn't have been like this if the people hadn't voted against it, postponed it, since Hillary introduced it. They are the reason the programs are being introduced now rather than them having been introduced before.

I've already said, you will get some form of universal health care, it's coming. That's why it's interesting to me, that you will spend so much time arguing this here, as if the issue is still undecided and you must convince the fence sitters.
Click to expand...

Because it's time to stop fighting and get with the program instead of chipping away at it only to have it return at a more inopportune time. Instead of an across-the board, universal medical plan there are still folks who want to place a limit here and an exclusion there and the result will be a hodgepodge of restrictions resulting in the occasional horror story and then people will cry, "See, government medical does not work!"

For example, how many miles in an ambulance is covered? If a person lives five miles further from a hospital does the ambulance stop and wait for the patient to write a check? Will the few people who live a distance from a hospital and require an ambulance bankrupt the policy?

I'm sure you've checked private insurance policies. You're covered for "this" unless you did "that" which resulted in some other thing that influenced the "this" that related to the "that". That's what people don't want. That's why the discussion continues.

Perhaps time for a humorous anecdote. Years ago, I applied for a mortgage in Quebec, Canada. The mortgage contract was in French. The bank stipulated the mortgage must be insured so if I died the insurance company would pay the bank and my beneficiaries would inherit the building rather than have the building automatically transfer to my survivors and the bank would then have to start by suing me for non-payment of the mortgage then, realizing I was dead, start a new case against my beneficiaries all the while my beneficiaries would be collecting the rents. (How's that for a run-on sentence?)

So, the insurance policy contained the term "mort en douceur" which roughly translates to "died gently" or "died carefully". "Mort" being "died" and douceur" being "softness".

Of course, I asked to see the manager for an explanation. She said it could mean a death but not by an accident. In other words if I got hit by a truck the insurance company wouldn't pay but if I died in my sleep, in my bed, that was covered. Maybe.

Needless to say I refused to sign up for such a policy as the cost would have been added to my monthly mortgage costs. The bank decided I wasn't going to die soon so they passed the mortgage, sans (without) insurance.

The whole point of the discussion being a universal medical plan must be truly universal, otherwise, it will be a nightmare.
 
I'm not sure how much private insurance costs so before I can comment extensively on your post can you give me a rough idea? What would the average family (mother, father, two children) pay per month for medical insurance, on average?

The reason I ask is I don't believe the additional monthly taxes a family may pay towards a universal medical plan would come anywhere near their current monthly payment for a private plan meaning if they didn't have the money to cover new medications that were not covered by a government plan they certainly wouldn't have the money after paying for private insurance.

And I doubt private insurance has a open ended clause stating they will pay for new medications and how would one know if they required a new medication unless they already have an illness and many private insurers will not cover pre-existing conditions so where are you going with this?


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


TuTu Monroe said:
Apple dear, please read what it says about NHC in the massive Obama stimulus bill which no one bothered to read. Thanks

By Bloomberg. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”



Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.



New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)



What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.



The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.



Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
Click to expand...
 
When I was working last year my company group helath ins was about $800/mo for 1 person.

I am paying 10K per year now private policy for just me till my medicare kicks in.
I got a 'deal' saving me 2k per year if I paid it in an annual payment.

My employees ins costs me approx $500 per month per employee. This is however more of a major medical type of insurance that will just keep them out of bankruptcy if a major illness. But better than most small businesses around here provide. And my payscale is $10 - $18/hr very good for here.

So right now I pay 12x10x$500 just for my employees health ins.

Looks like I will be selling my business to my employees though as soon as all the details are worked out.
 
Let's see if I got this right. If a person made 15/hr for the standard 2080 hours a year they'd earn $31,200. Then they'd pay $9,600/yr for medical ins?

Is that what you're saying?


uscitizen said:
When I was working last year my company group helath ins was about $800/mo for 1 person.

I am paying 10K per year now private policy for just me till my medicare kicks in.
I got a 'deal' saving me 2k per year if I paid it in an annual payment.

My employees ins costs me approx $500 per month per employee. This is however more of a major medical type of insurance that will just keep them out of bankruptcy if a major illness. But better than most small businesses around here provide. And my payscale is $10 - $18/hr very good for here.

So right now I pay 12x10x$500 just for my employees health ins.

Looks like I will be selling my business to my employees though as soon as all the details are worked out.
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
Let's see if I got this right. If a person made 15/hr for the standard 2080 hours a year they'd earn $31,200. Then they'd pay $9,600/yr for medical ins?

Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any amount we'd have to pay for universal healthcare would be much, much smaller that what we pay for group insurance through the workplace, or individually. The pool of citizens would be orders of magnitude larger than any group participating in any insurance company.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
I had one for a short time, then I quickly got out of it....next.
Click to expand...

It wasn't supposed to be a "gotcha" comment. I was wary of HMO's until I had to join one. After being in it for a few years, I can honestly say I found no difference between the quality of care of the HMO as opposed to the PPO's I've been with. Appointments were prompt, staff was helpful, paperwork non-existent. If I had to do it again, there would be no problem.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
I have always been against HMO's. We do need reform, but not what Obama has in mind. If you think his plan does NOT tell the doctors what they can and cannot do, you are crazy.
Click to expand...

Wasn't HMO's the solution to rising health care costs that the Republicans pushed?

and yes I am sure some of the dems as well. But wasn't it a Republican led effort?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top